By DANA LIEBELSON and BRYAN RAHIJA

Senior government officials are ignoring a White House directive that requires disclosure of key documents in the federal rulemaking process, thus hiding the potential influence of special interests on the writing of government regulations, according to a letter POGO sent yesterday to President Obama.

POGO's concern relates to--and bear with our wonkiness for a moment--how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)--the White House office within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for reviewing federal regulations that protect public health and safety--and rulemaking agencies are interpreting Executive Order (EO) 12866.

This EO, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1993, requires OIRA to publicly disclose all documents exchanged between OIRA and the rulemaking agencies during the crafting of new regulations. The EO also requires the rulemaking agency to identify to the public any changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. President Obama reaffirmed the EO last year in his own executive order.

POGO readers should care because failure to heed the requirements in this EO could substantially harm the public interest. POGO’s letter cites one recent example in which OIRA apparently weakened a final rule on disclosure of conflicts of interest held by researchers who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Part of the problem, POGO argues, is that OIRA and agencies have flouted these transparency requirements since the 1990s:

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

Mar 26, 2012

By DANA LIEBELSON

The campaign by POGO and allies to open up the Senate markup of the U.S. defense budget bill continues to gain steam. Almost thirty good government, taxpayer, and civil and human rights organizations from across the ideological spectrum have pressed the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) to shine a light on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Additionally, Committee Member Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) recently issued a statement reaffirming her support for opening the markup:

The American people have the right to know what their leaders are saying and doing as they set the national security priorities for our country, a process that includes mapping out how over half a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds should be allocated. That’s why, since I came to the Senate, I’ve fought hard for the Senate Armed Services Committee’s consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act to be fully transparent and open to the public. We had some success last year, when I opened to the public the consideration of the Readiness Subcommittee’s portion of the annual defense bill. I’m hoping to build on that success this year.

The NDAA authorized more than $662 billion of taxpayer dollars for FY 2012, but it was drafted in secret in the Senate committee. This makes little sense, given the fact that on the House side, the markup is open and the Committee can easily move to an executive session when classified information is being considered. In addition to opening up the markup, drafts of the bill and proposed amendments should be posted online in advance—as is done by House Armed Services and most other committees.

John LaBombard, a spokesman for McCaskill, told POGO that “every year McCaskill has been a member of SASC, she has fought to open the full committee negotiations [and argued that] only a tiny portion of the legislation deals with classified information.”

You can take action on this issue by going to www.OpenNDAA.org to sign on to two letters: one thanking SASC members like McCaskill who have voted for transparency, and another urging the others to vote against conducting the NDAA markup in a closed session this year.

There is no doubting that this issue is polarizing. A controversial new proposal by the House Budget Committee, doesn’t even try to hide the fact that it wants to sacrifice federal jobs in order to prop up the private sector. The Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to control “unsustainable growth” and “privileges” enjoyed by government employees by:

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

Mar 24, 2012

By ANDREW WYNER

A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee belatedly celebrated Sunshine Week this past Wednesday by hosting a hearing on FOIA in the 21st century (the House was out of session during Sunshine Week itself). The witnesses, selected both from good government organizations and federal agencies, all testified before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform on the importance of online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) services. Witnesses were not, however, in complete agreement in exactly how to bring FOIA into the 21st century.

The FOIA Portal, being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Archives (NARA), and the Department of Commerce, received high marks from Members of Congress and witnesses alike. Acting Subcommittee Chairman Mike Kelly (D-PA) and Ranking Member Gerry Connolly (D-VA) were both enthused by the FOIA Portal and the positive impact it would have. Sean Moulton, director of Federal Information Policy at OMB Watch, stated “Congress should make it clear it’s best for every agency to participate.” Moulton said that the problem with FOIA is “a lack of consistency. The FOIA portal offers a level of consistency across government.”

Unfortunately, critical provisions on political intelligence reporting requirements and public corruption prosecution improvements were scrapped from the final bill. A vocal supporter of political intelligence industry regulation, Sen. Grassley was one of the three “no” votes on the weakened bill. The New York Times reports that Grassley said rejection of the proposal was “a victory for Wall Street and a defeat for the American people — a victory for the hedge funds and big banks that like the secrecy of the status quo.”

However, POGO is pleased that the House version’s stronger executive branch coverage was included in the final text. The bill heading to President Obama strikes the right balance for more transparency in the executive branch by mandating the online posting of financial disclosure reports already required to be public under law.

By DANA LIEBELSON

Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Robert MacLean--a whistleblower who revealed wrongdoing in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Cummings, the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (HOGR) and a long-time champion for whistleblower rights, is the most recent representative to join the cause.

“Mr. Cummings’ entry is a powerful credibility booster shot, since he is the ranking member of HOGR that has jurisdiction over the Whistleblower Protection Act,” Tom Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project (GAP) told POGO.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

Mar 22, 2012

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

Mar 21, 2012

By MIA STEINLE and DANA LIEBELSON

The debate on the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex continues - and it's starting to resemble a real estate deal gone sour. Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) has written another letter to Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), urging him to visit two nuclear weapons facilities that Turner wants to waste billions of dollars replacing.

Turner is the desperate real estate agent, trying to convince the American public to buy $14 billion in property during a housing slump. The problem is the two proposed nuclear facilities that Turner is selling—intended to replace the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility (CMR) in New Mexico and Building 9212 in Tennessee—are unnecessary. The existing facilities could be upgraded at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers.

That’s right: Real Estate Agent Turner is essentially telling taxpayers that since their air conditioning is crappy, they should fork over billions for a brand new house. Any day now, he’s going to be asking us to pony up for a marble patio. Although the Obama Administration wants to expedite construction of the Building 9212 replacement, known as the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF)—a building of truly questionable utility—there’s substantial evidence that support for the two new proposals is losing steam. As we learned from last month’s presidential budget request, the CMR replacement has been put on hold for at least five years.

So what's the cause for the recent turnaround? Aftergood points to a May 2011 directive issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

That DNI directive appears to have broken the logjam of agency resistance, and at least some parts of the intelligence community that previously rebuffed GAO inquiries have become completely cooperative, congressional officials said.

POGO strongly supported an amendment to the Act that would have crystallized the GAO's authority to conduct oversight of the intelligence community. But the amendment disappeared from the final legislation without a trace, and in its place was the instruction to the DNI. We were skeptical that this would result in allowing Congress to fully assert its power, but it seems at least now there is some oversight, which we welcome.